OOS Collapse Propagation Model

[DGM]

I hate to be the master of the obvious here, but those blocks are solid. The trade centers weren't. Bad example.

If you read on, he's using it as a bad example and how Chandler's reasoning is wrong. In this case Major Tom is correct.

The men on stilts is interesting.

 

[NoahFence]

If you read on, he's using it as a bad example and how Chandler's reasoning is wrong. In this case Major Tom is correct.

oospie

 

[pgimeno]

If you read on, he's using it as a bad example and how Chandler's reasoning is wrong. In this case Major Tom is correct.

Yes, and no.

He may be right with respect to Chandler, Gage and Heiwa, but he fails with respect to Bazant, for lack of understanding of his work:

And you still misunderstand the reach and purpose of that model, no matter how many times you have been pointed it.

It didn't mean to represent accurately the collapse. Its purpose was to provide a way to formalize the collapse, in order to make it tractable with equations, something that your model completely lacks.

It might be arguable whether that model falls into the spherical cow oversimplification problem, but nobody here has provided evidence of that being the case, not to mention providing an alternate, more accurate mathematical model.

MT keeps complaining that cows are not spherical [1], instead of arguing why the spherical assumption implies a significant difference in the cows' productivity. It has already been argued that the spherical assumption does not make a significant difference with respect to milk production. IIRC Ozeco was the only one arguing that it makes a difference, but I don't remember him giving any compelling argument. MT's argument has always been "cows are not spherical" and he's stuck in that, and mocks Bazant for that reason.


[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_cow

 

[Major_Tom]

On a special class of Blockheads which I'll call The Rebucklers


Bazant and Heiwa
Newton's Bit and Gordon Ross
R Mackey


The basic belief of rebucklers is that rebuckling of columns after the initial failure of governs subsequent motion of 2 great blocks, or that it means squat after the imitial failure sequence.



Debates between rebucklers require reducing the Twin Towers buildings to an abstract 1-D homogenized mental image and then believing in it with all ones might. while ignoring the overwhelming visual evidence contraty to the fantasy conception.

It is very important to remain totally focussed on the 1-D abstraction and not look at any visual evidence or you might see giant intact perimeter sheets like this:

Or the large sheets within the rubble like this:

or the whole width of the core survive like this:

and this
http://img710.imageshack.us/img710/3991/newfoot.gif


.........................

Somehow this abstract idea called a "zone B" or a freakish homogenizing buffer zone forms between 2 giant "blocks". Nobody really know how, but remain focussed on the 1-D image in your mind and ignore all that for now. That is how the blockhead approaches the motion....focus on those abstract blocks and shut out everything else.

In order to understand this belief system, if you suspend critical thought and imagine a middle region "B" that acts as an impenetrable separator between 2 giant "blocks" and imagine the building as a giant accordian.......:

The concept of buckling and rebuckling on and on all the way to earth is so odd that I couldn't find any example of the buckling pattern other than in an accordian.

Even in this case one would have to open the folding part all the way and then close it in such a way as to only close one end while leaving the length of the tube straight. The left part with the buttons can be thought of as the "upper block" and the right side as the "earth". The stretched tube folding in only on one side represent the columns buckling and rebuckling.

There are probably other examples I could find in an old cartoon featuring Wile E. Coyote chasing the roadrunner of crush down, then crush up, but please try and use this old accordian for now.

................................

Fruits of the original exchange of ping-ping between the truther and debunker rebucklers:

:

Bazant, Verdure: Progressive Collapse Mechanics

Bazant, Le: Closure to Collapse Mechanics

Bazant-Le-Greening-Benson..:WTC Collapse

Gordon Ross: Momentum Transfer Analysis



Within the exchanges of "ping".......and "pong"...... there was the underlying assumption that after the initial failures things like column strength, factor of safety, buckling mode, strength of column steel and all other attributes of columns mean anything at all.

Longtime readers may recall endless exchanges on

Factor of safety for columns througout the buildings.
Buckling mode
Propagation rates of the "upper block"
Fantasy conceptions such as a "zone B"
Assumptions like "homogeneity"

Very few would have noticed that the assumption of the Bazant "crush down, then crush up" is that the famous columns in the "upper block" do not "buckle upwards" while being protected by their all powerful and guardian angel within "zone B". Unfortumately, I haven't met a single person in my journeys through JREF that could read the BL paper well enough figure that out. Posters tend to prefer to hurl insults at me instead of making any sincere effort to understand the mechanics on which the papers are based.




The belief in rebuckling and in an all-powerful, all homogenizing "zone B" was the true birth of the blockheads. Blocks couldn't exist without a very strong guardian angel manifesting as a "buffer zone B".

I'll be showing some of my favorite Wile E. Coyote and the ACME Engineering Co style sketches of famous fantasy block models and illuminating quotes by those gullible enough to believe in them later today.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The true significance of rebuckling in the WTC debate and your special role:

During the multi-year game of ping-pong between the great Rebucklers, The average non-technical reader had a special role to play as is demonstrated nicely in the following short video.

The two cats with the paddles represent our engineering experts (debunker Rebucklers on one side and truther Rebucklers on the other) and the younger kittens would be you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIMoGUDhxlg&feature=related


Do you see your role in all this? It looks more enjoyable than running on a hamster wheel but it is exssentially the same thing.

 

[Major_Tom]

Cubism: Blockhead contributions to our misunderstanding of WTC Twin Tower collapse propagation.

You must be quite disciplined to be a blockhead. Focus only one two blocks like two big pieces of bread and a flat, homogenous "zone B" within like ham, cheese and mayonnaise within the bread.
If it helps, think of Bazant's Zones A, B and C as a big ham sandwich.


Homogenous minds creating homogenous block mechanics for a gullible audience.


Next step is to slap some variables onto the great blocks and the infinitely strong and protective homogenizing guardian angel of the "upper block": Zone B.

This way we can whip out some equations of motion and pretend we are doing "real physics" on a "real building".

Note how just as in the case of the Chandler baby blocks, "upper block" columns ride on top of a homogenizing guardian protector and supporter "zone B" like they are on a magic carpet.

BLockheads ignore any contact surface between "blocks" that does not result in homogeneity. They have to dream up imaginary, super-strong "contact surfaces" to preserve the fantasy blocks.

Your equations may result in some absurdities, but publish them in silly graphs like this and few people will even notice:

The lower 2 graphs are quite amazing in that a thing called "crush up" ends due to the "capacity of columns". Rebucklers sincerely believe that column force and a guardian angel in zone B can end a thing they call "crush up".

Once again, in order to make this seem real to you, have faith in the omnipotent barrier called zone B. That should homogenize your mindset enough to actually believe in this crap.

Homogeneity is the key to being a blockhead, both physically and mentally.


Tragic results of believing in blocks and blockheads, The birth of the Great Piston and piston-fart theory

This is Bazant's conception of how debris was scattered so far from the base of each building. You do not need any perimeter peeling at all, just hurricane winds creating massive piston-farts.

 

[NoahFence]

??

 

[NoahFence]

So what does it all mean? Explosives or no Explosives?

 

[beachnut]

So what does it all mean? Explosives or no Explosives?

It means he failed to back in CD, does not understand models, and there will be no math to back up his attack on Bazant.

 

[Major_Tom]

Definition of HOMOGENEOUS

1: of the same or a similar kind or nature
2: of uniform structure or composition throughout <a culturally homogeneous neighborhood>


The WTC Twin Towers Collapse Dynamics is based on using the most complete visual record possible to map the actual drop movements of the buildings.

There is no assumption of homogeneity nor can there ever be. The key to understanding the true collapse dynamics is in noting perimeter and core stripping through a ROOSD mass progression and the actual perimeter dropping that results. Visual evidence tells us overwhelmingly that the collapses were fundamentally non-homogenous processes.


The true tragedy is not in how simple Wile E. Coyote type block models were forced into the debate, but how homogenous and uncritical the victims of this propaganda were in the face of it.

It was as if a guy named Dr B can tell you anything, Drs C, D and E can confirm it and the average reader is so hypnotized that they deny direct photographic evidence to the contrary while fawning on the published crap.


Mental homogeneity and gullibility are the problems. Without them you would never have taken that multi-year game of ping pong seriously.

Without your own passive participation, people cannot fool you so easily.

So try to remember that, my brother Beachnut.

 

[NoahFence]

Definition of HOMOGENEOUS

1: of the same or a similar kind or nature
2: of uniform structure or composition throughout <a culturally homogeneous neighborhood>


The WTC Twin Towers Collapse Dynamics is based on using the most complete visual record possible to map the actual drop movements of the buildings.

There is no assumption of homogeneity nor can there ever be. The key to understanding the true collapse dynamics is in noting perimeter and core stripping through a ROOSD mass progression and the actual perimeter dropping that results. Visual evidence tells us overwhelmingly that the collapses were fundamentally non-homogenous processes.


The true tragedy is not in how simple Wile E. Coyote type block models were forced into the debate, but how homogenous and uncritical the victims of this propaganda were in the face of it.

It was as if a guy named Dr B can tell you anything, Drs C, D and E can confirm it and the average reader is so hypnotized that they deny direct photographic evidence to the contrary while fawning on the published crap.


Mental homogeneity and gullibility are the problems. Without them you would never have taken that multi-year game of ping pong seriously.

Without your own passive participation, people cannot fool you so easily.

So try to remember that, my brother Beachnut.

Explosives or no explosives?

 

[beachnut]

Definition of HOMOGENEOUS

1: of the same or a similar kind or nature
2: of uniform structure or composition throughout <a culturally homogeneous neighborhood>


The WTC Twin Towers Collapse Dynamics is based on using the most complete visual record possible to map the actual drop movements of the buildings.

There is no assumption of homogeneity nor can there ever be. The key to understanding the true collapse dynamics is in noting perimeter and core stripping through a ROOSD mass progression and the actual perimeter dropping that results. Visual evidence tells us overwhelmingly that the collapses were fundamentally non-homogenous processes.


The true tragedy is not in how simple Wile E. Coyote type block models were forced into the debate, but how homogenous and uncritical the victims of this propaganda were in the face of it.

It was as if a guy named Dr B can tell you anything, Drs C, D and E can confirm it and the average reader is so hypnotized that they deny direct photographic evidence to the contrary while fawning on the published crap.


Mental homogeneity and gullibility are the problems. Without them you would never have taken that multi-year game of ping pong seriously.

Without your own passive participation, people cannot fool you so easily.

So try to remember that, my brother Beachnut.

Project your qualities on others fails as does your attack on Bazant.

Oh yes, " the most complete visual record" is great for making up what the core is doing. You are cool, making up stuff based on what you see, and then what you think it means. You can't handle air escaping the WTC, models confuse you. Good luck, 10 years and no progress - that is something.

You prove you don't understand models by attacking them, try to remember that brother Major Tom who has failed to make a case for CD in the 10th year of failure for 911 truth.

You have failed to make progress proving gravity collapse was an illusion, and you have failed to bring to justice the Satan like fantasy figures you think did 911. Remember, attacking Bazant's model only exposes the weakness of your arguments, claims, goals, and conclusions; if you had any.

How does your OOS support your claim gravity collapse was an illusion?

 

[Major_Tom]

You have failed to make progress proving gravity collapse was an illusion,

.......

How does your OOS support your claim gravity collapse was an illusion?

I know you are, like, infraction-proof on this forum.

I know you are able to freely transcend any forum rules. Teach me, my brother, how I can slander and misquote endlessly and drift above the moderator's attention.

Teach me, my brother, for I carry infractions on my JREF record like heavy crosses for doing I know not what.

Can you speak to them on my behalf as we continue to search for the truth together?

 

[NoahFence]

Explosives or no explosives?

 

[DGM]

I know you are, like, infraction-proof on this forum.

I know you are able to freely transcend any forum rules. Teach me, my brother, how I can slander and misquote endlessly and drift above the moderator's attention.

Teach me, my brother, for I carry infractions on my JREF record like heavy crosses for doing I know not what.

Can you speak to them on my behalf as we continue to search for the truth together?

I'm reasonably sure he has received infractions.

This is a "forum management" issue and you really should bring it up there. You wouldn't want to be "carded" for of-topic.

 

[Reactor drone]

MT, I've noticed you like comparing your observation model with simplified, worst case scenario type, models and pointing out how they differ from the fully detailed reality. You can probably take it as read that we're all aware of what the models are for and what their limitations are.

Maybe you should be comparing your observations/results/predictions to the more detailed ANSYS models that were used by NIST to study the collapse initiation. See how your predictions of column loadings compare to NISTs and so on. That would seem to be a much more useful comparison.

 

[Major_Tom]

Maybe you should be comparing your observations/results/predictions to the more detailed ANSYS models that were used by NIST to study the collapse initiation. See how your predictions of column loadings compare to NISTs and so on. That would seem to be a much more useful comparison.

WTC1 and WTC2 collapse initiations are definitely the place to look closest.

I had 2 threads to do just that. WTC1 tilt angle, inward bowing and the NIST collapse initiation scenarios were the main subjects.

Your fellow posters had them destroyed by combining them into a meatball sandwich. About a year of posting on WTC1 including your efforts to measure tilt were buried under another detailed thread on WTC2 turning both threads into compost.

 

[000063]

Your fellow posters had them destroyed by combining them into a meatball sandwich.

That sounds delicious!



I was wrong! I was horribly wrong!

Jokes aside, why a "meatball sandwich" metaphor?

 

[Major_Tom]

Meatball sandwich....two pieces of bread (my two former threads) compressed together around an incoherent mess. It could be any one of the sloppier sandwiches.


Beyond Cubism, A more reasonable approach:


Notice in the following description that the author never needs to start drawing giant rectangles or "blocks". He is not a blockhead. He is not a Rebuckler.

Instead, he considers the particular structural components of the WTC towers and thinks in simple, practical terms.

I will keep it generic to both WTC1 and WTC2.
(Two disclaimers:
1) I have edited the following explanation from one posted several times since 2008 on other forums; AND
2) In the interest of clarity I will also take several simplifying shortcuts in the explanation. To stave off much of the 'let's prove him wrong' counter attacks I will label each such short cut thus 'SSC#1' )

The Context
At the start of the global collapse there was interaction between the bottom side of the Top Block AND the top side of the lower tower. And those two objects had this structure

...note the tube of outer wall columns, the core with multiple columns and cross braces and the open floor space resulting from the intentional adoption of the so called 'tube in tube' design. So the global collapse has to account for the interaction between the top block and the lower tower which are mirror reflections of each other and up till shortly before the initial collapse had been connected together.

There are three main questions:

1. What did the falling outer tube columns of the Top Block interact with and with what result?
2. How did the falling floor area interact with the floor area of the lower tower; AND
3. Ditto for the cores - how did the falling bit interact with the lower bit.

Set to one side for now the issue that the two blocks could not be perfectly aligned. It makes no significant difference. 'SSC#1'

What Happened with the Outer Tube?
It is clear that at some stage the Top Block broke up into its component parts. Where and precisely how that happened makes no difference for reasons which should become apparent.

The key factor is that as it fell the Top Block fell inside the outer tube of the lower Tower. And it appears that the outer columns of the top block were still attached at that stage which leads to the conclusion that those top block outer columns fell down inside the lower towers outer walls together with the floors and remainder of the top block. Either that or those top block outer columns fell outside the lower tower and were peeled off. As the global collapse progressed the outer tube columns of the lower tower were simply peeled off as the falling mass separated the floor joists from the columns. That part at least should be free of contention.

What happened to the Open Office Floor Areas?
Easy one. They fell onto the open floor areas of the lower tower. Whether still part of an integral Top Block or as components which had been disconnected. And it matters not which. 'SSC#2' If they fell as an integral block they would apply a load which was a significant portion of the Top Block weight. At later stages it is more likely that the falling load in the open floor area was the by now disconnected top block floors plus the accumulation of other floors as those floors were sheared of the columns. bottom line is that the falling mass sheared off the floors in sequence leaving the outer columns to fall over and the core columns with reduced horizontal restraint.

What happened to the core?
The key issue here is that by the time we entered this 'global collapse' stage all the core columns have failed and are not aligned 'top bit' sitting on 'bottom bit'. And even if some are still in that apposition the column has lost its load bearing capacity. So the wire basket of the top block core falls on the wire basket of the lower tower core.

And the key point is 'What part of the top block core strikes what part of the lower tower core?' It is not column on columns and must be the horizontal cross beams that land beam on beam and not in synchrony. 'SSC#3' The column 'end for end' contact had been displaced by the mechanism of the initial collapse. These beam on beam contacts are staggered in time. The dynamic, elastic and plastic factors make exact descriptions difficult to say the least BUT the first impact is one cross beam hitting another OR at the most a few such impacts at near enough to the same time. AND almost the total weight of the Top Block Core lands on one two or three beams.

The key descriptor is 'overwhelming'. The dynamic impact of 10 or 20 stories of core landing on a few cross beams 'SSC#4' will probably shear those beams at their shear critical point - probably the beam to column connection. And, if the beams yield in bending before failing they will drag columns out of alignment. As the collapse progresses falling material will impact columns as well as beams, columns already out of alignment. The interactions become far more complex BUT with one characteristic. It is not possible 'SSC#5' for true 'end for end' contact to be established which can develop the full load capacity of any one column. And even if it was for one column the falling weight is sufficient to instantly crush/buckle that one column into failure. The key concept at the start of global collapse is that the impact is of most of the weight of a 10 or 20 storey block dynamically applied to a few cross beams. Yes then a few more but never all at once in synchronism. And from that initial point contact with columns will be glancing contact against out of vertical struts leading to easy failure.

Now so far I have treated the collapse as outer tube on but actually missing outer tube; floor area on floor area and core on core. And all of those impacts involve overwhelming forces. If pure floor on floor it puts the total structure of 10 or 20 floors onto a floor designed to hold one floor. And the load is applied with dynamic impact. Failure is a foregone conclusion.

In reality the three components are joined - by the hat truss at roof level and by floor joist to column connectors at each floor of the top block. Those in interconnections would adjust the balance of where each bit of load was actually born but the falling mass landing on weak structural elements remains "overwhelming'.

And the key point to notice is that from the start of the global collapse stage the Top Block falls inside the outer tube of columns. Set aside for the moment the question of how it got wedged inside the lower tube. 'SSC#6' It is clear from just about every video of the collapse that the falling mass fell inside the outer tube of columns. And it is clear from the many photos of the outer tube columns lying scattered outwards from the tower that those columns had not been crushed end for end. They had simply been peeled off.

Summarising

Once the Top Block started to fall "global collapse was inevitable" to echo the words of NIST.

Inevitable because the strength of the outer tube of columns was bypassed. Because, once started with the separated columns not in alignment the strength of the core was mostly bypassed. The weights landing on the floor areas - many floors on one floor impacts and the weights landing on the core - many floors total weight landing mostly on the cross beams of one floor level of the core. Both areas saw structural elements overwhelmed by loads which as simple statically applied loads would have been at least a decimal order of magnitude higher than those elements were intended to support AND those loads applied dynamically further multiplying the gross overload.

He never homogenized anything. He is describing an inherently non-homogenous type of crushing. There is no flat surface anywhere upon which little tips of columns can ride like a magic carpet.


Notice how he needed no fantastic descriptions or a guardian angel "zone B".

He has transcended cubism and is looking for more realistic descriptions of mass flow.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I have more to say about the blockhead influence upon both truthers and debunkers, but here I want to show the reader that there is a better way than reducing everything to giant rectangles and over-simplified block physics.

Nobody really needs rebuckling, or factor of safety for column strength, or the ability for the lower columns to be crushed beyond their capacity.

That was all intellectual ping-pong. Engineers Gone Wild. How could such a simple system as Ozeco describes have its crush-down rate determined by the strength of columns? Where is the accordian of rebuckles all the way to earth?

No need for all that.

 

[pgimeno]

I have more to say about the blockhead influence upon both truthers and debunkers, but here I want to show the reader that there is a better way than reducing everything to giant rectangles and over-simplified block physics.

Where's the math?

 

[Reactor drone]

I think I'll stick with NCSTAR 1-6. It seems much more professionally put together and it has maths and engineering models as part of the analysis.